Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Altruizine wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
You can't manage risks that you can't control or interface with.

A risk you can control isn't a risk.

noun
1.
exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance: It's not worth the risk.

You can control whether or not to engage in the risk. It's part of it's definition. If a risk is thrust upon you because there is no alternative then it is by definition not a risk.

“- Hull Points are in, it is stated that Ghost Arks, Land Raiders, and Defilers each have 4 Hull Points apiece. Necrons have the ability to strip hull points for each roll of a 6 to penetrate/glance vehicles, making rapid-firing gauss weaponry very powerful at removing armour.”

Did we really need to nerf vehicle? Really? Mech might not be for everyone but we can all agree it speeds things up big time. I don't want every game to be 4 hours long...



“- Speaking of rapid fire, you can indeed move and fire once up to the full range of the weapon (it is explicitly stated that Fire Warriors can fire their weapons up to 30" away), no confirmation on the 3x fire for Relentless at half range though.”

Not a big deal either way.


“- Assault moves are indeed 2d6", but added together. Units equipped with jump packs can re-roll the dice to see how far they charge.”

Completely stupid.. apparently the only difference between an ogryn and a dude on a jetpack is… dicegods?


“- The Rage USR gives you +2 attacks on the charge”

At least there’s an upside to rage now.


“- All flying monstrous creatures have the ability to fly 24", doing something called a "Vector Strike", which is a certain amount of automatic hits to a unit they fly over, at the base strength of the creature.”

Might be cool.


“- Monstrous creatures' attacks are explicitly AP 2”

Not this ap s**t again…


“- Every army must select a "Warlord" or single general to lead the army, this leader gets an ability. They can choose between three different types of abilities, "Personal", "Inspirational" or "Strategic". They then roll on one of those charts to see what ability it is. The two examples given were a Grand Master giving all friendlies within 12" his Ld of 10 (Inspirational), and a Chaos Lord being a scoring unit (Personal, the ability itself was called "Immovable Object")”

This sounded cool until I had to roll on a chart. My general chose strategic, he’s very strategic you see, before every battle he decides on what to do by spinning a f***ing bottle… sigh

- Flyers are a specific type of unit, and it is somewhat unclear as to the rules for shooting at them. Either all units require a 6 to hit them (unless they have a special rule called Skyfire), or this is still the case but only if those flyers move flat-out. Monstrous creatures with the ability to Fly also get this "6-to-hit" rule.

They better just be flimmers, if they’re actually flyers I’ll quit. The flyer rules are an abortion with rancid coleslaw on top.


- You have the ability to buy different terrain (it even has its own slot on the new FOC), e.g, you can buy a Bastion with a Quad-Gun (which has the aforementioned Skyfire USR). There seem to be quite a few options for what terrain you can buy, but naturally most of them are typically represented by terrain kits GW sells.

“typically represented by terrain kits GW sells” Great, so ya my nids have these bastions… so f***ing stupid. This will make tournaments run really smooth I assure you. It's one thing to do this stuff with expansions I an avoid playing or purchasing... but core game? If its based only on what gw has for sale, you've just helped imperial armies and... no one else. It's the main problem planetstrike had. Had they released terrain specific for all armies it'd be cool and maybe that's in the works but this isn't for an expansion sadly it's in the CORE GAME, terrible terrible idea. I can avoid playing planetstrike, I can't avoid playing the base freakin game. Also, what if said terrain is the only way to access "skyfire" stuff with the ability to shoot down flimmers without rolling a 6? Now you can't not allow it because its become a game balance isssue because GW is stupid.




“Now we're on the topic of the FOC, the rules for allies weren't laid out specifically, but it is heavily implied that its not the same as in WHFB. They refer to allied units as "Detachments", and there is an example of a player with a Chaos Space Marine force having some detachments of Chaos Daemons in his army. Basically, I was given the impression that it is far more common (and frequent) for a detachment from another 40k army to join a larger one, than it is for a Fantasy army to have Allies. Think more along the lines of the Storm of Magic rules for using TK, VC, or Daemons.”

When it was just a guide for friendly games I was happy, now that it’s actually real and can be used in any game I want to vomit in my own mouth. Any idea how man a***oles are gonna be taking like greynights with their guard now?


“- Here's a biggie: Units -can- go on Overwatch, giving them the ability to fire upon an enemy unit which charges them, but at BS 1. Eldar (and any other army with access to the Clairvoyance psychic power set) can use a psychic power to give a unit the ability to fire at their usual BS.”

It’s sad when this is one of the more benign rumours…


“- Monstrous Creatures have access to a special "Smash" attack, allowing them to halve their attacks, but double their strength. It mentions that this gives them the ability to destroy tanks more easily.”

Because monstrous creatures were low on strength before...

“- It's somewhat hinted that AP will have some kind of affect against vehicles. This is because part of the Munitorum dice set includes vehicle damage dice. It specifies that some of the dice are "AP 1, AP 2, and AP 3 Damage dice", or something to that effect.”


This wouldn’t be so bad if they didn’t already nerf the vehicles..


“- 4 Disciplines of Psychic powers, basically what we were thinking in terms of Clairvoyance, Biomancy, etc etc. There's a chart near the back of the WD detailing which (if any) psychic disciplines a particular army gains access to. It's interesting to see that a large amount of armies don't have access to any at all.”

But it’s all good cuz you get a 6+… kill me now

I like the idea for adding terrain out of your points, proving it's cool and neat. I've built a few nid pieces so it's all good.

Yeah there was the folding fortress in fantasy and it was a common tactic to place one large unit in a building and two tiny ones else where and play point denial. Then someone shows up with a hit everyone spell or a handful of shooting and everything goes down hill.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Altruizine wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
You can't manage risks that you can't control or interface with.

A risk you can control isn't a risk.

noun
1.
exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance: It's not worth the risk.

You can control whether or not to engage in the risk. It's part of it's definition. If a risk is thrust upon you because there is no alternative then it is by definition not a risk.

You choose when in the game to undertake the risk, though.

You have any thoughts on my longish post at the bottom of the last page?

Altruizine wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
You can't manage risks that you can't control or interface with.

A risk you can control isn't a risk.

Actually, no. Risks are things you actively attempt to mitigate. Things you can't mitigate at all are purely random events. Difference between tactical risks and things that are simply risky.

Battling against a cagey opponent involves risks, that will require improvisation and acting in a way that does its best to mitigate risk. Battling in the shadow of an actively erupting volcano involves NO risk, just purely random chance of liquid hot magma killing you, or ash, or a giant piece of superheated exploded rock landing on your head.

Random charge distances without a fixed "x" + d6 or 2d6 or w/e are not risky tactical choices. They are purely random acts of nature. Just like people won't battle under the shadow of an actively erupting volcano, b/c of the fact that you can't mitigate the bad things going on ... people will "mitigate" the risk of purely random assault distances by shying more and more away from assault.

"I don't know what's going to happen, it's totally random" isn't a tactical choice inducer. It's not even a legitimate risk, because there's no reliable mitigation strategy other than total avoidance (or, if you want to be technical and absurd, never committing until you can get 2" away from something).

*shrug* ... that doesn't mean it's a bad thing or good thing ... one can argue for value in totally random events; that said, calling a totally random event a tactics-improving game change is a little inaccurate, even if it's an enjoyable factor for many players.

Scottywan82 wrote:That is completely untrue. Have you not been managing risks in 40k up to now? Did it not include dice rolls? Saying they are unmanageable is completely false.

Sure, I'll addend that by saying "manageable within a reasonable framework". That said, you either don't understand what the word "risk" means or you're going to jump through hoops with logic like "If you don't want the inherent risk of someone stealing the initiative then always deploy to go second". There is always a cop out like that, but what is the risk/reward scenario of a random charge distance? Where is the risk? Random charges aren't a risk because I can't say "Nope, I don't want to try for 12 inches, I'll just go the basic six". If there is no alternative then there is no risk. Not charging is not a reasonable alternative. Not bringing assault units is not a reasonable alternative. It's just a random element that serves to dumb down the game. There is no risk reward scenario in randomizing a leader trait and theres no risk reward scenario in randomizing terrain features. These are just set up elements that pre and post date any risk taking scenario and simply guide further decisions, but through the lens of randomized stakes that can aid or hurt a player in ways outside of his own control.

Excellent Shuma. I've been trying to think up a response to this but you absolutely nailed it there.

Altruizine wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Altruizine wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
You can't manage risks that you can't control or interface with.

A risk you can control isn't a risk.

noun
1.
exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance: It's not worth the risk.

You can control whether or not to engage in the risk. It's part of it's definition. If a risk is thrust upon you because there is no alternative then it is by definition not a risk.

You choose when in the game to undertake the risk, though.

You have any thoughts on my longish post at the bottom of the last page?

Sure, you state that there's no failed positioning due to a failed charge in 40k, but I'd contend that since you're moving six inches to set up the charge in the first place a failed charge leaves you out of position anyway. It's not as harsh as in fantasy as the charge bonus' aren't as strong and the game isn't as oriented towards block charging, but there is still a defacto downside and failing a charge in that way will often times cause the loss of said unit. I know that every time it happens to me from now on I'm going to be generally angry at the random nature of the game. I don't want my plans and tactics mitigated by the random nature of the game, I want to feel like I had something more to do with my victory than just making obvious choices and rolling well.

ShumaGorath has it.

I have to build my Fantasy army around a Wizard whose abilities I cannot know until the game starts (with a single special character exception most do not seem to allow).

That is not a risk, that is random.

Crablezworth wrote:“- Hull Points are in, it is stated that Ghost Arks, Land Raiders, and Defilers each have 4 Hull Points apiece. Necrons have the ability to strip hull points for each roll of a 6 to penetrate/glance vehicles, making rapid-firing gauss weaponry very powerful at removing armour.”

Did we really need to nerf vehicle? Really?

Yes.

kirsanth wrote:ShumaGorath has it.

I have to build my Fantasy army around a Wizard whose abilities I cannot know until the game starts (with a single special character exception most do not seem to allow).

That is not a risk, that is random.

Disagree. Let alone the fact that magic went full-slow OP in 8th and made WHF a mess, armies with the best wizards can easily pull of enough stuff to maximize chances of getting a certain spell. Ask all those Tzeentch sorcerers why they always get their Gateway...let alone the fact that every sorcerer has 2/3 of his spells available in each game. Not much randomness involved.

Err. . .your examples are neither risky nor random.

And you all keep avoiding the idea that random IS risk. Investing is risky because the market is volatile. War is risky because battles are not always predictable. Randomness is almost synonymous with risk.

EDIT: http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/itv/articles/?id=1185 See here.

Just a few comments overall...


1. I'm not terribly happy with random assault distances. On the other hand, so many assaults in 5th are already random due to terrain, so this aspect isn't going to change the game too terribly (except for maybe assaulting from vehicles). On the plus side, I'll gladly take a 2d6 result over a 1d6 roll any day. Heck, I might even prefer (2d6)/2 instead of 1d6. Having a meaningful mean and standard deviation makes it a lot easier to evaluate your chances of making the charge.

2. Can anyone explain why they think allies are so terrible? IMO, it opens up army comp a lot and allows for much more interesting strategies, matchups, and variety. The drawback here is (presumably) the requirement that you bring extra HQ and troops, which are potentially point sinks that don't synergize well. (Of course, there may be additional limitations or drawbacks that haven't leaked yet). Overall, this has a couple of benefits. First, it lets people buy or try out other armies without having to make a huge up-front investment. Second, it helps to keep older codexes up-to-date by providing them with access to newer unit choices. And finally, armies will gain some additional flexibility, potentially expanding the meta by adding lizard and spock to rock, paper, and scissors.

I am not liking random charge at all

Removing decision making in favor of adding randomness does not add more ways for people to make decisions based upon perceived risk, or add ways to mitigate randomness.

elrabin wrote:2. Can anyone explain why they think allies are so terrible? IMO, it opens up army comp a lot and allows for much more interesting strategies, matchups, and variety. The drawback here is (presumably) the requirement that you bring extra HQ and troops, which are potentially point sinks that don't synergize well. (Of course, there may be additional limitations or drawbacks that haven't leaked yet). Overall, this has a couple of benefits. First, it lets people buy or try out other armies without having to make a huge up-front investment. Second, it helps to keep older codexes up-to-date by providing them with access to newer unit choices. And finally, armies will gain some additional flexibility, potentially expanding the meta by adding lizard and spock to rock, paper, and scissors.

I second this.

Would it not help to keep C:SM on par if they could take one psydread, or a stormraven?

Would it not be cool if you had 2 armies and wanted to use some of the models from each?

Would it not be cool when building a second army if you could play with some of the models while building your new army?

Scottywan82 wrote:And you all keep avoiding the idea that random IS risk. Investing is risky because the market is volatile. War is risky because battles are not always predictable. Randomness is almost synonymous with risk.

EDIT: http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/itv/articles/?id=1185 See here.

That's not true at all, you're completely leaving out the risk vs reward side of things. There's a reason risk management exists. You're basically saying the game should come down to "s**t happens". That's terrible.

Alpharius wrote:The whole 'from the front' thing is going to make things really annoying.

And needlessly complex and precise from a game which claims to be neither...

Personally I totally disagree. I think it introduces many many tactical concepts into the game, that are frankly missing.
(flanking, positioning, approach, etc.).

Not being critical of you sir, but just my perspective...if you don't like it, thats great...I am 100% sure there will be rules you may like, that I may not care for.

Thats common in the game now...not everyone likes everything...

However, I will reserve any firm opinions until I have the book in my hands and have read everything in context.

See you guys on the table...

Scottywan82 wrote:And you all keep avoiding the idea that random IS risk. Investing is risky because the market is volatile. War is risky because battles are not always predictable. Randomness is almost synonymous with risk.

risk   [risk] Show IPA
noun
1.
exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance: It's not worth the risk.
2.
Insurance .
a.
the hazard or chance of loss.

Why did I have to post this a second time? Risk is "exposure to chance". Risk is not chance. There is no risk reward scenario without the opt in or opt out of chance. How can you not understand what is fundamental to the basic definition of the term that you keep constructing arguments around...? Stop that.

Well... Somewhat. The mitigation is due to both sides being equally affected by the randomness, which is - in fact - mitigation of your own risk. But the net risk inherent in the system is increased, yes.

labmouse42 wrote:

elrabin wrote:2. Can anyone explain why they think allies are so terrible? IMO, it opens up army comp a lot and allows for much more interesting strategies, matchups, and variety. The drawback here is (presumably) the requirement that you bring extra HQ and troops, which are potentially point sinks that don't synergize well. (Of course, there may be additional limitations or drawbacks that haven't leaked yet). Overall, this has a couple of benefits. First, it lets people buy or try out other armies without having to make a huge up-front investment. Second, it helps to keep older codexes up-to-date by providing them with access to newer unit choices. And finally, armies will gain some additional flexibility, potentially expanding the meta by adding lizard and spock to rock, paper, and scissors.

I second this.

Would it not help to keep C:SM on par if they could take one psydread, or a stormraven?

Would it not be cool if you had 2 armies and wanted to use some of the models from each?

Would it not be cool when building a second army if you could play with some of the models while building your new army?

Cool is only cool so long as it's cool. The moment you see someone across the field flanking 10 paladins in a vendetta or a blood angels army composed entirely out of grey hunters and sanguinary priests you'll start to realize why cool sometimes isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scottywan82 wrote:Well... Somewhat. The mitigation is due to both sides being equally affected by the randomness, which is - in fact - mitigation of your own risk. But the net risk inherent in the system is increased, yes.

No. No that's not right. You are still fundamentally misunderstanding what these terms mean. I am not mitigating my own risks by being in a scenario where other people are effected by such risks. That does't even make sense. Risk and random are not the same. There is a reason they are different words with different definitions.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Why did I have to post this a second time? Risk is "exposure to chance". Risk is not chance. There is no risk reward scenario without the opt in or opt out of chance. How can you not understand what is fundamental to the basic definition of the term that you keep constructing arguments around...? Stop that.

Why did I have to post this a second time? http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/itv/articles/?id=1185

Randomness is an element of risk. Websters definition of "exposure to chance" means risk involves chance. So without chance/randomness there is no risk.

Scottywan82 wrote:Well... Somewhat. The mitigation is due to both sides being equally affected by the randomness, which is - in fact - mitigation of your own risk. But the net risk inherent in the system is increased, yes.

Unless there's a mechnic where you have to roll to see if a unit is able to shoot this does nothing for balance. People already play with way too little los blocking terrain or terrain in general, which makes it hard for close combat armies to compete and now this only adds to that. If I had 500pts nob squad roll snakeyes for a charge against a unit that was in the open I think I'd lose my mind.

kirsanth wrote:Err. . .your examples are neither risky nor random.

That's my point?

Scottywan82 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Why did I have to post this a second time? Risk is "exposure to chance". Risk is not chance. There is no risk reward scenario without the opt in or opt out of chance. How can you not understand what is fundamental to the basic definition of the term that you keep constructing arguments around...? Stop that.

Why did I have to post this a second time? http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/itv/articles/?id=1185

Randomness is an element of risk. Websters definition of "exposure to chance" means risk involves chance. So without chance/randomness there is no risk.

The color red is an element of a rainbow. Red is not a rainbow. Stop using ridiculous logical loopholes and shifting sands to cover up a very basic and very real misunderstanding of a basic term. Also, that article is a pep talk, not legitimate stock advice or strategy. Stop posting it. You can't just use a random bank article from 10 years ago to try and redefine a word. That's not going to work and it looks sad.

YOU misunderstand. Risk to a competitor in a zero sum game (1 winner and 1 loser is zero sum) is a mitigating factor to your own risk. The possibility of your opponent failing their saving throw reduces the risk that your assault will fail, etc.

EDIT: Sweet God. You really do love burying your head in the sand. Have fun being depressed for no reason.

TBD wrote:...Eldar, Tau and Necrons should be able to be allies to eachother...

Not gonna happen due to that insignificant incident called War in Heaven.
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/War_in_Heaven_(Necron)#.T-DV2Bc0OdY
Xeno armies will simply get no (Tyrannids) or limited allies (Dark Eldar, Necrons) unlike the Imperium Club.

someone please make this risk topic stop

Scottywan82 wrote:YOU misunderstand. Risk to a competitor in a zero sum game (1 winner and 1 loser is zero sum) is a mitigating factor to your own risk. The possibility of your opponent failing their saving throw reduces the risk that your assault will fail, etc.

EDIT: Sweet God. You really do love burying your head in the sand. Have fun being depressed for no reason.

Seriously, this is signature worthy. You've taken redefining terms to suit arguments to a new level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Read this ten thousand times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Weasel wrote:someone please make this risk topic stop

It's done, I have no more interest in arguing with someone who lacks a basic understanding of English terms.

Cyrax wrote:Xeno armies will simply get no (Tyrannids) or limited allies (Dark Eldar, Necrons) unlike the Imperium Club.

At least people are confident that Tyranids will not have to wait for an FAQ to get kicked.

That is good, right?